70-200 F4L - IS or non IS.

S

seifervn

Messages
40
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I would like to get a 70-200 F4L to take pictures in daylight. My budget is rather tight and I'm looking at the non-IS version. However, a friend of mine suggests the IS version instead, seeing that I have a rather shaky hands :'(

I'm thinking of taking pictures with tripod, but there would be time when I need to hand hold the thing. My question is: how often do you use the len hand held and how does it feel? Is it heavy at all, or is it reasonable to hold with a shaky hand given that I'll be taking pictures in daylight?

Thanks a lot for your input! :)
 
I use it handheld most of the time. It would really benefit from IS, as I get only 40% sharp shots under 1/320s at 200mm, and 1/200s at 70mm. On tripod there are other problems caused by the mirror vibration (need to lock up mirror first), and the wind (get tripod ring).

With IS the one I tried I could take photos in a very dim light, and even optically that version is sharper. The price is very hefty ie. double so you have to think if this is for you.
Why not consider f/2.8 non IS version? It is really sharp and you could shoot wide open every shot. It makes a huge difference, and the effect of f/2.8 is really stunning.
 
I think I have fairly steady hands, but I still bought the IS version. Kerso sells it for £799 - he's an independent importer that is well known and respected on here. You can check his trader record and PM him under the name kerso

IS is a huge benefit, and it is worth four stops on that lens. If you have trouble hand holding, this could make the difference between using a tripod and the freedom of hand holding. It could transform your photography.

If budget is tight, consider a cheaper lens but still with IS. EF 70-300 IS is excellent, and the EF-S 55-250 IS is also extremely good for the money. A lot of the extra cost of L lenses goes into the build quality. The 70-300 IS is very close to it optically.
 
Both have great IQ, but the IS version is slightly sharper. The IS is great for both static objects and even helps when panning (IS mode 2).

But if you want to save money, and still get a great lens the non-IS and higher ISO settings will be fine. Just take more shots to ensure you get a good number of keepers.
 
shaky hands person here too, the IS adds only about 60gms to the weight but it works like a dream. I love this lens.

Got it because it was light enough to carry around all the time and small enough to fit in any bag. The 100-400 only gets taken out for special trips, because it is so heavy and weighs the same as the 70-200 f2.8 IS so I know what a difference the 70-200 f4 makes which seems like a toy by comparison.

Used it on a 350D and a 40D, very happy with the handling on both.
 
trapper501 said:
shaky hands person here too, the IS adds only about 60gms to the weight but it works like a dream. I love this lens.

Got it because it was light enough to carry around all the time and small enough to fit in any bag. The 100-400 only gets taken out for special trips, because it is so heavy and weighs the same as the 70-200 f2.8 IS so I know what a difference the 70-200 f4 makes which seems like a toy by comparison.

Used it on a 350D and a 40D, very happy with the handling on both.
Click to expand...

Blimey! I don't remember writing this but with the substitution of 400D for the 350D and the fact that I don't really have shaky hands everything else applies. I'm obliged for the weight comparison too.

Save up for the IS, consider buying used from a reputable trader and you'll never regret it.
 
70-200 f2.8 is very heavy. I'm glad I went for the f4.
The IS is astonishingly good - when I got mine I tried four shots at night on the 20D, 200mm 1/6s hand-held at target across the room - 3 of the 4 were critically sharp and the other was good enough for a 6x4 - unbelievable!

I'll echo the above recommendation for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
I know two people who have it and both think it the dogs danglies.
I've had a play and the image quality is very very good.
If you have a limited budget then I'd say this a no-brainer!

SLRGear review says "Every now and then, you really do get more than you pay for, and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is proof positive of this. When we ran this lens through its paces in our lab, we were flat-out astonished by the optical quality it delivered. Were it not for the largely plastic body construction, we'd say that Canon has mislabeled this lens: It really delivers L-glass performance. "
 
I'd definitely vote for IS. I bought the 70-200 F4 initially and despite getting great results in the studio I found it too slow for use outside in the UK much of time due to poor light. I bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS and sold the F4 because I'd (mistakenly) read an apparently authoritative review that slammed the F4 IS. I love my f2.8 IS, but I think I'd have been delighted with the F4 IS version as well - sometimes I think of trading down to the F4 IS and buying the 200mm f2.8 MKII as well.

Anyhow - enough rambling - I think IS is critical in the UK unless you'll often be on a tripod or shooting flash.

Phil
 
The IS is a better lens if you can manage to get the funds for it, if not the none IS is still a superb lens.
 
The lack of IS isn't a killer. Don't get me wrong, given a choice I'd always take it if I could. But you can manage perfectly well without it.

My 85mm, 135mm and 200mm Canon lenses don't have IS. They're still capable of giving superb results. Keep the shutter speed up, increase the ISO if you have to, learn marksmenship techniques for keeping it steady and practice.

cheers
 
Bill Roberts said:
My 85mm, 135mm and 200mm Canon lenses don't have IS. They're still capable of giving superb results. Keep the shutter speed up, increase the ISO if you have to, learn marksmenship techniques for keeping it steady and practice.

cheers
Click to expand...

Yes, but they all let in between 2 and 4 times as much light as the 70-200 F4= higher shutter speeds = less need for IS. I think IS is really important for longer lenses slower than f2.8 unless you know you'll be on a tripod or in great light.

Phil
 
What do you think we did before we had IS Phil?

I'm only winding you up mate :) You're quite right, and as I said earlier I'd much rather have it than not. I guess we just differ on it's importance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top